A LOOK AT LABOUR PARTY'S PLATFORM

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 59, 3 December 1919, Page 8

A LOOK AT LABOUR PARTY'S PLATFORM

WHAT IT DISCLOSES. (By "Plain Speaker.") (Published by Arrangement for the N.Z. Welfare League.) The Labour Party's candidates complain that others won't look at their platform. l)o they know that many people believe that their platform is merely a cover and their real objects aro not disclosed in it. Mr. W. A. Veitch, M.P., has charged Mr. Holland and others of their leaders with preaching things that are not in . their platform, ami has quoted chapter and verse for his assertion. It is beyond question that tho matter used by Messrs. Holland Semple, and Fraser in their repeated violent utterances is not in tho platform. There aro some things wild enough in the platform, but nothing as bad aa what these men, without censure, havo uttered in the numo of the Labour Party. Seeing, however, that the party's candidates have challenged their opponents to discuss their platform 1 will point out 601110 things it contains and leave it to my readers to judge. Socialisation. The Labour Party's objective reads:— "The socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange." What do they mean by "Socialisation"? The Bolsheviks of Russia say their system is "Socialisation"—does the Labour Party stand for that? It is not defined 111 the platform, and the electors are expected to let the Labour Party fill it up as it pleases after the election. Why the "means of production, distribution and exchange" is to be socialised, and not tho resultant wealth, is nowhere explained. I am forced to the conclusion that the present Labour Part ( y docs not know "means" from "results.'

Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. This plank looks very fine when nicely decorated with cheap eloquence. What powers of initiative do they propose to give? What questions do their propose to refer and in what form? On what grounds do they propose recalling: and how often? Nono of these questions aro answered in the platform and yet they are the practical essence of the matter. If it took Parliament as long to settle general questions of legislation as it has people to settle the liquor question in New Zealand by referendum then New Zealand would have to put up its shutters, and yet that is the question wo all agree should be settled by referendum. My point is that the plank is too vague to bo of any practical value.

A White New Zealand, The most striking thine about this plank is that it is not in the Labour Party's platform at all. Messrs. gemple, Holland and Fraser talk as if it was, but they must be dreaming or trying to hoodwink the public: there is certainly no such plank in their platform. When we como to think of it why should we expect, it there? These people of the present Labour Party are internationalists, who say they believe in human brotherhood. Men are all the same, whether white, black, ml, or yellow. In the old. Labour Party's platform, before the Hcds took charge, there was a plank which declared for a white New Zealand—but now there is none. This will be a staggerer to many of my readers, but it is the truth. When Bob Seinple talks big about the dangers, of an influx of Chinese and Indian coolies, as if he and his party were against it, lis is simply bluffing and deceiving his hearers. There is no such plank as what is known as "White New Zealand in the present Labour Party's platform.

Nationalisation. This is how the platform, declares for nationalisation: "Where national ownership of an industry is effected, all labour for such industry, and at least half the board of control in each case shall be apnomted bv the union or unions affected.'" Now 'that is tlio Bolshevist system straight out, and yet the party's candidates object if you call they Bolshevists. Whv? Just thiuk what the above moans. In every industry that js nationalised the union or unions affected shall appoint all of the labour and have, at least,_ half control of the management. It is ns> well iliat they put in the words at least," or sumo people might have thbught them extremists! If the mines were nationalised on the above plan the Miners' Federation would engage all tho labour and appoint half of the manager, and nil the rest of the nation could have what remained. I will admit that this is not full blown Bolshevism, for in Russia under Lenin and Trotsky the unions appoint all the labour anil all the management. Still, tho Xew Zealand Hods are only starting.

The Right to Work. That is another plank. It stands there in the platform in. all its shameless nakedness. There is 110 word about the duty to work. In the face of recent events some will think it should read "the right not to work"; but no —there it is, with no qualifying word about, "how"' or "when." In this country there is little diliicultv about getting work. What about giving those who run the industries the right to get labour? This plank is far too bare. i It should have been elaborated. It might have oven been worked up into a song such as: . Tilt; right to work, and tho right to shirk. And the right to ma.kp other folks pay, The right; to hohavo like a fool or a knave •, Then sit down and wait for ' Our Day."

Repeal of tho Defence Act. Yes, it is just so in ihe platform: "Kepcal of the Military Service Act and the Defence Act." It- makes one tired to vend this ruhb:slr in the platform. But, why worry, Hill? If an enemy comes sliooling at us we can always pass ltsoiutioiis that wo are for "dignified neutrality," as the Federation of Labour diil when I lie recent war was on ami our men were sulfcring and dying in tbe I reaches. This if enough to think over at pivsenl. I will analyse eouie more of this precious platfurm a little later.

Asked whether there was a good demand at Ihe present time for building sections, a well-known Auckland agent replied that the high cost of labour and materials requisite for the erection of a dwelling house was evidenlly militating against ilio sale of land in the suburbs. "We aro told timber is scarce in Auckland," ho added, "and yet 1 am assured a million ami a half feet is being shipped away, which does not seem the best way of providing more houses locally'. Of course, one cannot blame the exporter, if he finds it pays better to ship limber than to sell locally. Men are mil in business for philanthropic, reasons, but (lie question i» whether such export should be permitted under existing circumstances, when thcro is such au acuta shortage of houses."